+1
Stephanie Perrin
There will always be issues that can be used to avoid the transition. Delay is really not going to help in this case. I believe delay will kill this, and we will look back with regret if it does not go forward now. best regards DG ----- Original Message ----- From: "Ron Wickersham" <[log in to unmask]> To: [log in to unmask] Sent: Wednesday, May 25, 2016 5:11:00 AM Subject: Re: great opening statement by Brett i'm not convinced that going slow is any kind of attempt to kill the transistion. i share the concerns Ed and Kathy have enumerated, and am extremely uncomfortable with the important items that were shuffled off into workstream 2 just to get these contentious and very important issues off the table. dividing the work up is ok, but get the whole work stream parts 1 and parts 2 and if need be parts 3 and 4 resolved before the actual transition. as both a NCUC and NCSG member as well as a USA citizen, i don't see how my representatives can approve a half-finished plan where the stakeholders have not resolved important issues -- the only thing the stakeholders have addressed is how to divide the work into two streams and agreed on the first part only. not every one who shares these same concerns is a USA citizen, these concerns are not US centric at all. and with the change in leadership of ICANN in the middle of the process affects the continuity of the deliberations and adds additional uncertinty. i'm on the side of proceeding more slowly. a finished good plan that is agreed (really a compromise) between all stakeholders will stand on its own merit and will succeed. by overloading with too many separate, sometimes overlapping, groups makes it impossible for Non-commercial volunteers to participate in all the important steps. still we can recognize if the final plan is insufficient to address our valid interests, so we have to see the end product to adequately judge our position. -ron